crank :

13 Oct 2012 9:59:30am

Clearly it is not. Both sides act with dishonour in abusing each other. The Liberals, however, are the worse offenders, quite clearly, and the tactics of disruption have been an object lesson in why adversarial, so-called 'democratic' politics are so very, very, destructive and unproductive. As for Pyne, I think that he is quite a character. I abhor his ideology, but find his behaviour endlessly fascinating. He's like some character from Dickens. His self-regard is prodigious, which is not necessarily a bad thing, if put to work doing good, but that's the caveat with them all, is it not?

Moriarty :

13 Oct 2012 10:02:05am

Hearing Ms Kerner this morning endorse the PM's attack on Abbott in the House this week makes me wonder how deeply some are thinking about this matter. No reasonable person would disagree that when one sees sexism and misogyny they should call it for what it is. However Ms Gillard's attack was more than that. Ms Kerner said she 'didn't want to talk about Mr Slipper'. So what is Ms Kerner saying? That it is alright for Ms Gillard to be selective about her attacks - that if it suits her political goals to attack her political rival that is ok, however if she chooses to avoid attacking another on exactly the same issue, if it suits her political goals not to attack, that is alright? And then of course is the matter of truth. For the PM has virtually no credible evidence to be sure Abbott is in fact sexist and mysogynist. So is it also ok to stridently attack anyone whether or not there is any truth in the allegations? The issue is not so much sexism and misogyny as about hypocrisy, truth and fairness. I believe that is what most of Gillard's critics would think.

crank :

13 Oct 2012 10:50:47am

Don't be disingenuous. Everybody that has witnessed Abbott's career (and I did at first hand at Sydney University) knows precisely what type of creature he is. Moreover, misogyny, along with numerous other antipathies, is endemic on the Right as their psychology feeds on hatred of the other. And Kernot knows from nasty, first-hand, experience ( as Lindsay Tanner observed on Q & A this week) of Abbott's attitudes. The next thing the Right will be doing is denying that misogyny exists amongst its ranks at all. As the infamous Rightwing politician observed, if telling a lie, tell a 'Big One' because it will befuddle the proles.

crank :

Jezebel :

14 Oct 2012 12:43:38am

To call oneself "Crank" provides a nice puzzle for readers. Irony perhaps? A certain self-knowledge, even if only knowledge of the opinion of one's peers about one?

Like the self-refuting postmodernists who make one scratch one's head about the claims to be taken seriously of people who basically are saying there is no objective truth, Crank presents us with the possibility that he is claiming not to have changed in any way since he was a (presumably young, but more of a problem if not young) student in the mid 1970s? After he would have to affirm that, wouldn't he,if he is to be accepted as even attempting to be a witness of truth when he pronounces on Abbott's character based on what he was like (in the eyes of a biased and juvenile observer) at the age of 20.

The blather about the Right doesn't deserve more attention than to note the existence of feisty females like Sophie Mirabella, Bronwyn Bishop and many others who are Opposition members. Misogyny is rare in public life, as is Misandry except perhaps amongst the failures who fall into the usual classes of haters of the opposite sex, nearly always because of their own personal history and experience if not necessarily deficiencies and personal faiures.

The idea that Abbott is a misogynist is absurd, though it is not untrue to say that some women's frustrations and dissatisfactions may find a focus on him, expressing perhaps their misandry. As to whether he may sometimes say something rude to or about women (which I would expect to be rare unless calculated and rare even then) that would surely be just part of his political determination to get under someone's skin, merely tactical moves in the political battle. Which is what Gillard was doing in the Slipper speech as she wsa when she used "mincing poodle" of Pyne. But then "Crank" you can't really be as silly, illogical, ignorant, immature and careless as you have allowed your anonymous trolling self to portray you.

Jezebel :

crank :

14 Oct 2012 8:39:48am

To call oneself Jezebel ( one presumes the bearer is female) asserts a certain claim to notoriety. One hardly imagines the proverbial librarian being a 'Jezebel'. It is a euphonious appellation, as they say, however, so I'll cut you some slack. At Sydney University Abbott wore his character as a badge of honour, and, in my opinion at least, his actions in politics in the years since have shown clearly that that character is set in granite. And to argue that those who have finally tired of Abbott's behaviour towards women are themselves bigoted against all men, and poor widdle Tony is the real victim, is crass casuistry, worthy of a proselytising Jesuit or News Ltd hack. You're not Janet Albrechtsen, are you?

Phil :

13 Oct 2012 10:06:06am

Really Geraldine - have you completely lost your compass? Or should I say Compass?I had to switch off during your proposal for what topics might be outlawed as an ethical standard for politicians. Suicide etc. Such an approach is the equivalent of rather than instructing children not to bully, tell them to avoid kicking anyone in the head.It seems that you have been sucked in to accepting the appalling standards of behaviour of our pollies. You are implicitly accepting that the norm is that pollies should play the man, or woman, as much as they play the ball. Pollies should not normally make any personal comments about other pollies, instead spending their mental energies on the facts of the subject being debated. There are lots of commentators who can analyse and identify low motives.Yes I know it is not that simple; but surely we can restrict serious personal accusations chiefly to censure motions where the subject of debate is a politician's behaviour.What really riles is the lack of humour in the personal abuse in Aussie politics particularly. Telling points can be even more effectively made than by the ignorant snide remarks we normally hear.Our pollies, with so few exceptions, lead only in being such moral humbugs. Right or left; male or female.I feel better now!

crank :

13 Oct 2012 10:56:49am

Adversarial, so-called 'democratic ' politics reveals itself, more and more, as not just villainous, not just utterly unproductive, but as actively destructive. The prime example is ecological collapse, which the Right denies solely because it is a 'Left' obsession, and because addressing it implies a critique of the capitalist system that the Right plainly values more highly than their own children's lives. The obstruction and sabotage of environmental law, protection and remediation, as witnessed under new Rightwing regimes in NSW, Victoria and, most marked, Queensland, is, in my opinion, a new low in public life. No wonder the Chinese are eating our lunches and have become the last hope for deliverance from ecological destruction.

Thales :

14 Oct 2012 1:04:19am

Do you live in a little cocoon of your own Crank? I mean perhaps in Fitzroy or Balmain where there are half a dozen people who know exactly what you mean by "ecological collapse" which deserves the present tence as in "the Right denies". Apart from whatever your Humpty Dumpty meaning is, would you care to spell out for people who have been genuinely caring about and caring for the environment and at least reading extensively about ecological matters from Amazonian and other rainforests to the needs of farmers for thriving bee colonies everywhere, not to mention a couple of decades on the causes of global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.Of course it is true that some numerate and economically literate right of centre people do regard the loonier Greens as mad when they advocate Australlia making itself relatively poorer and less able to help those who may need it by substituting vastly expensive and inefficient wind power for cheap coal based electricity. People like Craig Emerson and Lindsay Tanner know that very well. Madness multiplied by megalomania when it leads to a PM going to Copenhagen with a vast retinue to find the Chinese won't even talk to him when he has been promising to show them a good example and ask them to try and do something that would actually make a very little (though still irrelevant) difference to our future climate.

crank :

14 Oct 2012 8:55:44am

Where to start? The insult to Thales, perhaps? In any case, any crackpot who argues for burning coal in place of wind power on the basis of 'cost', has to be living in denial. In case you missed the news, the Arctic summer sea ice is rapidly disappearing. The loss of the reflective ice cap, and its replacement by dark, heat-absorbing water, leads to as much extra heat being absorbed every year as that caused by the emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. You know, CO2 etc, emitted by those lovely, 'cheap' coal-fired power stations you Rightwingers love with such suicidal ardour. The disruption of northern temperate weather caused by the disappearance of the Arctic ice cover is already heavily affecting agriculture. Food prices are soaring, and hunger and malnourishment growing. I know, of course, from experience, that the Right simply denies this, and every other problem, because, having come to dominate humanity utterly, their arrogance allows no defects in the perfect beauty of neo-liberal capitalism to even be mentioned, let alone acknowledged. Greed conquers all, after all. So climate disruption, ocean acidification, global mass tree death, the spread of anoxic 'dead zones' in the ocean, ubiquitous pollution etc, etc (one could go on for quite a while)must ALL be denied, in a ritual worthy of the basest cult. Little faery tales for the dim but zealous, like 'Little Ice Ages' conveniently ending at a rubbery date which changes with the requirements of denial. Oh, and, 'Congratulations', because you on the Right have won your Pyrrhic victory, because the ecological collapse, as any half-wit knows, is upon us. Enjoy your triumph!

Diarmuid Hannigan :

13 Oct 2012 11:33:35am

Geraldine as you stated the arena of parliament is a man made construct. It is now primarily run by lawyers. also a man made construct. Lawyers are educated in law. In other words in how to beat and rob humans of their assets in favour of more powerful men. They are not accountable to anyone and have no standards. It does appear that Alan Jones, not a lawyer has become accountable to what we as human beings believe. Thank god.These constructs date back to Roman times and then to its transformation into the Roman Catholic Church. Also a man made construct. Until we as humans and as citizens of Australia demand that our government structures, that is parliament and the Judiciary (Legal profession) behave like everybody else, abide by standards and are accountable for their actions this orgy of abuse of power will continue.

There is a starting point to all of this and funnily enough it begins at the end. It has been identified by that manifestation of Australian boganism Alan Jones when he insulted the dead. Currently Australia's Inheritance laws are under review. This area of law is a massive money making pit for the legal fraternity. The way these laws are constructed will determine the level of exploitation and abuse that can be meted out upon grieving families of the dead by merciless and powerful lawyers. The people who have been given the responsibility of reviewing these laws are lawyers. Unless there is a major challenge to this process of law reform by men and women in the interests of family development the status quo will remain and the man made culture of abuse of power will traverse forward into the future. I would ask you to go to www.lawyersorgraverobbers.com for an in depth explanation. Thank you for reading

Kim :

Donald :

14 Oct 2012 1:33:53am

Geraldine: my apologies. My obsessive brother Angus likes to put on his Irish act occasionally and your name and ancestry must have set him off this time. I try to keep him taking his medication and not post on the Internet but he needs to let the bees out of his bonnet occasionally and it really wouldn't help if I told him not to or tried to edit his effusions.

Diarmuid Hannigan :

15 Oct 2012 9:20:58am

Donald The truth it hurts and when ones only defence is the attack upon the messenger Hermes by accusations of insanity and racist bigotory towards the superior intellect of the Irish it is a sad world for the lawyer class. Collaboration, Concilliation, Acountability and transparency are all fabrics of a civilised society and they currently require a great deal of support by all of us people, that is men women and children who form Australian families.

p3t3 :

13 Oct 2012 1:55:24pm

When do political leaders get to address this question to themselves :

"how, exactly, is what is being addressed in the national interest?"

It does seem the underlying purpose of the Parliament is too often lost in the heat of debate....and the collected individuals need to be reminded of it on a regular basis. Surely too much of what is said on both sides of the house is way far "off topic".

For me the answer is more independent members, rather than fewer. It is members within main parties exhibiting the worst behavior.

catherine glad :

13 Oct 2012 8:33:59pm

the discussion between Megalogenis and Brent was so interesting because of the high standard of questioning Ms Doogue brought to the issue,and their considered responses .Unfortunately ,on 702, I have,too often,heard lazy journalism get a "right" and a "left" spoksperson to comment, thinking they have covered the balance issue, and are in the clear but we, as listeners ,are left with pap. We are not given a really considered discussion over 16 minutes as Doogue offered with commentators digging deeper than the daily meme.Thank you Geraldine Doogue for that really good exchange as I think some of your colleagues in political journalism were not aware of the effect Ms Gillard in Parliament had on social media globally

Rachel :

13 Oct 2012 8:34:55pm

Geraldine you asked for models of how to maintain civil behaviour whilst supporting robust debate. I think Bob Brown was absolutely remarkable for his ability to maintain his and his opponents dignity - by playing the issue, not the man, and politely calling innappropriate behaviour. When he was first elected to Tasmanian parliament he endured relentless taunts about his homosexuality in the chamber - yet he persisted, under conditions that were extreme by any standards .. a remarkable man

Donald :

14 Oct 2012 1:15:16am

You are obviously a nice person. A senior Tasmanian Labor politician many years ago told me that he found Bob Brown totally untrustworthy and I have looked at him sceptically for evidence one way or the other ever since. I'm afraid that I wouldn't trust him either except to be smart experienced and smart enough to be devious in ways where he wouldn't often be caught out.

Rachel :

13 Oct 2012 8:37:20pm

Geraldine you asked how to maintain civility in parliament. Ask Bob Brown, who always maintained his dignity and that of his opponents. He called behaviour when it was warranted, but without vitriol. I recall the torrents of abuse he suffered for his homosexuality when he entered Tasmanias parliament. He persisted, without rancour, apparently. Remarkable

Rachel :

13 Oct 2012 8:39:46pm

If you want a model of parliamentary civility (and robust debate) look no further than Bob Brown. Bob suffered terrible abuse when he first entered Tasmania's parliament - yet he maintained his dignity

Phil :

14 Oct 2012 10:32:03am

ianC, So agree.As evidence of media connivery you need look no further than the above intro words to the program: 'It certainly has been an engaging week in politics...'It has been just the reverse.I know that it is easy to blame the media, but I would prefer reportage of the form 'There was an odious exchange between Gillard and Abbott. Repeating the details would be embarrassing and unedifying'. But they like to report a fight and that is what they do.

ianC :

14 Oct 2012 7:58:02pm

doesn't sound like the measurable men were commonplace??

Sunday extra this morning talked about politicians and fukushima - captured by their own omnipotence and like minded bigwigs, and irrelevant to real people. no different from here really. sad that the narcissists bubble to the top of the political playpen.

the constitution is full of good stuff corrupted by political parties. the radical solution is to make political parties illegal. then we can have measured politicians replace childish games in parliament.

ianC :

Ian :

13 Oct 2012 10:50:35pm

Having watched Question Time in the Reps on ABC News 24 in which Julia Gillard spoke against the motion to remove Peter Slipper as speaker, I was dumbfounded at press reports that seemed universally naive. The Abbott motion was deliberately vexatious because the Slipper case was before the courts, a crucial judgement in his harassment court case was so near, he had little chance of returning as speaker for more reasons than one, and justice must be seen to be done. While oppositions usually behave in this fractious way, no government would support such a premature and provocative motion - nor did most of the independents.

Gillard made these points in one terse sentence or two, once she and a few colleagues had concluded that avoiding this debate was unwise in the hung parliament. The rest of her speech was rightly devoted to the motivations of the mover, Tony Abbott. Understandably she was rather more angry at recent events than Tony Abbott's chicanery and negativity. Moreover, some hyperbole on her part and parcel of parliamentary debate.

The problem with all this is not "the rules of engagement" but the pressures and motivations that drive third-rate reporting of parliament by the Canberra press gallery. Why did overseas media alone understand the politics of the Slipper motion, and why has criticism of the press gallery been so muted this week?

Donald :

14 Oct 2012 1:29:39am

To someone who confuses the motion that Abbott brought with Question Time perhaps you need some help in understanding that the issue of the matter being before the courrs was a non-issue. It was neither a matter where the well-established parliamentary rules precluded debate touching on matters which happened to have come to public notice because of the legal proceedings (for one thing the issues in the case were not what the House was asked to vote on and there was no quesion of the judge's decisions being affected by the debate) or a matter where the courts themselves might have objected had the debate been outside Parliament. The issue was, after all, one fairly and squarely for the Parliament, namely, "is this man fit to remain in the ancient and honourable office of Speaker which represents Parliament to the world, to the Head of State and to visiting heads of state, ministers and diplomats?".

A competent Prime Minister, rather than one who is at best a gutsy gutter fighter, would have said "The Opposition has said that I own the Speaker since his appointment last year. It will therefore not object, whatever becomes of this motion, if I say that I will deal with what flows from the disclosure of text messages apparently passing between Mr Slipper and Mr Ashby. I accept that responsibility and the result will be seen by the end of today. That being said, I cannot fail to comment on the hypocrisy and opportunism of this unnecessary motion ......"

Dr Gideon Polya :

14 Oct 2012 8:37:47am

PM Julia Gillard has the right and indeed the duty to attack "sexism" and "misogyny" but her false, defamatory, vituperative and disgraceful personal attacks on Tony Abbott detract from decent public debate. Rightly or wrongly Mrs Abbott, her 3 daughters, female Coalition MPs, the majority of Australian women who vote Coalition and even the new Speaker, Anna Burke, think otherwise of Tony Abbott - is PM Julia Gillard implying that they are all mistaken, lying or self-hating women? I hasten to add that I have never voted Coalition.

The current mudslinging about "words" and "who-said-what-about-whom?" is a continuing debasement of already woeful public discussion in look-the-other-way Australia that resolutely ignores shocking "deeds" and Elephant-in-the-Room realities such as the following ACTUAL horrendous abuse of women and children occurring under the pro-war, pro-Zionist, US lackey Gillard Labor Government (noting that the worst thing that can happen to a woman aside from violence or death is harm to her child or death of her child):

1. Under-5 infant deaths totalled 2.9 million in Occupied Afghanistan since 2001 and 2.0 million in Iraq since 1990 (UN Population Division data; immense US Alliance, Australian and Gillard Labor-complicit war crimes).

2. 34% of Australian women and 16% of men have been sexually abused as children ("Little Children are Sacred" Report, p235); 40% of Australian women over 15 have experienced violence since age 15 (Vic Health Report "Violence Against Women in Australia") - yet the Gillard Labor Government refuses to admit or seriously tackle this horrendous problem, preferring the easy option of falsely defaming its Coalition opponents rather than incisively defending women, girls and children.

Vicki :

14 Oct 2012 2:35:18pm

I am sure if we ran a phone poll on all major progammes, yours, other sections, such as TV - the 7.30 report, A Current affair, The Project, whatever would capture all sections of the community, you would find that we all deploy the present behaviour of BOTH parties, and want them to STOP and get on criterizing the policies and forget the individual!!!! In my lifetime I have voted for both partiies and have also been a floating voter....now I cannot find one party I would want to vote for. Grow up and discuss issues, if I wanted to watch & listen to boring 'reality' I would really lower myself and turn on the Kasdashians!

JamesJohnsonCHR :

Thank you Geraldine for your informative programs, most recetly, this gem on Politics and the Rules of Engagement.

I have for many years enjoyed your television and radio projects - the daring in your topics AND the depth to which you cover them, AND the overall professionalism of your journalism.

I thank you too for the robust moderation of this comments section on your blog. From (a) the blatantly racist plant comments of the anonymous racist villifier "Donald" - clearly identifiable, from the content of his frequent posts to your blog, as a member of / front for this country's insidious lawyer class (refer my qualifications below) - to (b) the erudite insights of Mr Diarmuid Haningan (an award winning author, businessman and exporter - I believe Mr Hanigan was a worthy winner of AusAID's small business exporter of the year about a decade ago).

Part of the confusion / the frustration / the idioycranisation of Australia (that kind of began even before the first fleet landed on these fatal shores in 1788) is this misconception that we are a civilised nation with democratic values, human rights and rule of law.

As Emeritus Professor Donald Horne tried to explain to miscomprehending Australians in his 1964 "The Lucky Country" and again in his 1976 "Death of teh Lucky Country", with honourable mentions to Professor Peter Botsman for his 1999 "The Great Constitutional Swindle" and the late Robert Hughes for his "The Fatal Shores", Australia has never had any of these virtues.

The "fight club" rules of Law, Politics and Media in Australia are and have always been:

1. Hit the Man. 2. Hide the Issues.3. Empty your oponent's pockets.4. Combine 1 to 3 and Do it fast, furious and frequently until out comes the "desired" outcome.

Bruce Smith :

17 Oct 2012 12:42:46pm

I think this interview represented very well only one side of the debate. There are reasons why this cannot happen from time to time but it would be nice to have someone from the Canberra Press Gallery present to give their view.

Stephanie :

20 Oct 2012 10:41:01am

I listened to the letters read out on Saturday 20 October on the misogyny issue and was heartened to hear that so many other people have felt the same way as I do about it.

To the person complaining about relatives being referred to in parliament;I don't agree. I don't see why mention shouldn't be permitted in special instances like this, especially because of the obnoxious utterances made publicly by a "shock jock" in connection with this loss for the PM.

I am proud of PM Julia Gillard for her classic speech, and like others have said, proud to be an Australian women because she has spoken what so many of us have felt and suffered over our lifetimes, and needed to have had said for so long.

It is clear that the media and people around the world can see what the Australian media and a large section of the Australian public cannot or do not want to see; i.e. that our country is backward in the area of gender relations. If there is any doubt about this, look at Anne Summers' online speech "Her Rights at Work" to see what has been done to the PM, and the cartoon depictions of her that are enough to make any decent person vomit. These depictions have been going on for years and are not just an insult to the PM, but reflect horribly on all Australian women. How would you feel if your teenage daughter aspired to high office in Australia and was attacked this way? Because that is exactly what our young women can expect if this kind of woman hate in Oz does not stop.

I don't believe this is a man-woman dichotomy because of the many men who are themselves disgusted at the treatment of the PM and disrespect for the office of the leader, and come out to say as much. And because of those women who choose to either ignore or deny the persecution of the PM for personal political expediency, or for their own selfish reasons.

Dr. Summers has shown with examples the way sexist attacks are distiguishable from other heated parliamentary debate. It is, as she says, the "conspiracy of silence" that has allowed it to happen. Members of parliament have been sent emails of such vilification of the PM as exampled on Dr. Summers' site on a daily basis and yet none of them, nor the media, have spoken out about it. Why not? It is interesting.

To those hung up on the Slipper business; if the LNP Coalition had dealt with him years ago, none of this would have happened. Slipper was pre-selected 9 times by the LNP; never by Labor. Abbott went to his wedding and has been a personal friend so wouldn't you think that he would have known what Slipper was like? Parliament is not doing the work of the courts; this is the separation of powers.

And regarding Abbott's attitude to women; does anyone seriously think that Abbott would have punched the wall (after he lost a student election to a woman) either side of a man's face back during his Sydney Uni days? He would not.